On the Imperative of Interdisciplinarity in Defining Digital

Exclusion?

Sylvie Michel

and Magalie Duarte

IRGO (UR 4190), Université de Bordeaux, F-33000, Bordeaux, France

CEREN (EA 7477), Université Bourgogne Europe, Burgundy School of Business, F-21000, Dijon, France

Keywords: Digital Exclusion, Digital Inclusion, Interdisciplinarity, Information Systems.

Abstract: Digital inclusion is a central concept in information systems (IS) management, in a context of social and

environmental transitions, and with the emergence of disruptive technologies for society, such as artificial

intelligence, or blockchain. When it is mobilised in the literature, the aim is mainly to provide solutions to

digital inequalities (digital divide and literacy). However, situations of digital inclusion and exclusion can co-

exist, in the meantime. To assess the impact of digital technologies on society, we stand for an imperative to

define this complementary concept of “digital exclusion”, i.e. the social mechanisms that keep individuals

unable to fully participate in a world structured by technological spheres. Our article proposes to anchor this

definition in an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on philosophy and sociology, in order to envisage and

operationalize future required research on digital exclusion in IS.

1 INTRODUCTION

In Christian literature, the first excluded figure was

Jesus Christ. This illustrates how deeply the notion of

exclusion is embedded in history and social systems.

It serves here as a starting point to question the

underlying mechanisms of digital exclusion, a

concept at the heart of contemporary debates on

inclusion and equality.

Research in Information Systems (IS) has long

focused on digital inequalities — the gaps in access

to digital technologies (digital divide) and associated

skills (digital literacy) — as well as their relevance in

local contexts (van Dijk, 2020; DiMaggio &

Hargittai, 2001; Faik et al., 2024). Digital inclusion is

often viewed as a political response to these

inequalities, facilitating social inclusion through

digital technologies (Jaeger et al., 2012; Reisdorf &

Rhinesmith, 2020). However, this approach to

inclusion is built on notions of difference, inequality,

and social stratification (Warschauer, 2003).

To understand the effectiveness of digital

inclusion policies, it is crucial to examine the concept

of digital exclusion and its mechanisms,

complementing the existing work on inclusion. This

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8175-9996

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7890-3525

article proposes to take digital exclusion as a starting

point, aiming to open new avenues for research.

As a complement to recent studies on digital

exclusion (Vassilakopoulou & Hustad, 2023; Wilson-

Menzfeld et al, 2024), this work draws on

philosophical and sociological frameworks to define

and characterise digital exclusion. The objective is,

first, to explore the concept of digital inclusion and its

limitations through a literature review. Subsequently,

we will characterise digital exclusion by employing

philosophical and sociological approaches,

particularly focusing on the notions of boundaries and

social mechanisms. Finally, we will propose a

research agenda centred on the dimensions and

implications of digital exclusion.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ON

DIGITAL INCLUSION

Research in Information Systems (IS) on digital

inclusion primarily focuses on evaluating digital

inequalities and the political solutions aimed at

reducing them. Digital inclusion is often perceived as

690

Michel, S. and Duarte, M.

On the Imperative of Interdisciplinarity in Deﬁning Digital Exclusion?.

DOI: 10.5220/0013478600003929

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2025) - Volume 2, pages 690-693

ISBN: 978-989-758-749-8; ISSN: 2184-4992

a lever for social inclusion (Reisdorf & Rhinesmith,

2020).

However, some studies highlight the limitations

of this approach. Zheng & Walsham (2021)

emphasize that analyses centred on technology access

and adoption tend to obscure the social and political

dimensions of digital exclusion. Pandey & Zheng

(2023) identify four levels of digital inclusion:

technological adoption, community participation,

empowerment, and structural transformation. Faik et

al. (2024) advocate moving beyond access

inequalities by exploring the role of vulnerable

populations in the inclusive design of technologies.

The literature can be synthesized as follows, as

shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Key contributions on digital inclusion, from the

literature

Reference

Summar

Key Definition

Reisdorf &

Rhinesmith,

2020

Digital inclusion has

been studied for

decades, focusing on

understanding and

addressing digital

access ("digital

divide"), use, and

skills ("digital

literacy").

Digital inclusion

policies aim to bridge

digital divides and

foster digital literacy

as a component of

broader social

inclusion (Jaeger et al.,

2012).

Faik et al., 2024 Emphasizing

inclusive technology

design for

marginalised

communities,

exploring socio-

cognitive processes

during the definition

of technical

requirements.

Digital inclusion must

address the dynamic

socio-cognitive

processes that enable

communities to

interpret and shape

technologies in ways

meaningful to their

contexts.

Pandey &

Zheng, 2023

Critiquing the framing

of digital inclusion

around "who" should

be included and calls

for examining power

structures and

institutional norms

affecting inclusion.

Digital inclusion

involves not only

access and skills but

also empowerment

and structural

transformation,

challenging power

imbalances and

fostering participation

in societal structures.

Zheng &

Walsham, 2021

Arguing for moving

beyond a simple

"digital divide"

framework,

emphasizing users as

embedded in social

relations and power

structures.

Digital inclusion is a

dynamic process

involving interactions

between users,

technologies, and

social structures.

These contributions call for redefining digital

inclusion as a dynamic process involving interactions

between users, technologies, and social structures. To

address digital exclusion more comprehensively, we

propose drawing on the perspectives of

anthropological philosophy and sociology.

This interdisciplinary approach allows us to

explore the complex interplay of technological,

social, and human factors that shape exclusion. By

examining the boundaries and mechanisms

underlying digital exclusion, we aim to expand the

theoretical and practical understanding of the

phenomenon and its implications.

3 DIGITAL EXCLUSION:

PHILOSOPHICAL AND

SOCIOLOGICAL

APPROACHES

Definitions of digital exclusion vary. It can be

understood as a mere lack of access (Naidoo & Raju,

2012) or as a loss of autonomy and active

participation, tied to power structures (Pandey &

Zheng, 2023). To define digital exclusion, we

propose a combined philosophical and sociological

approach.

3.1 A Philosophical Perspective: The

Notion of Boundary

Exclusion can be examined through the lens of

philosophical anthropology, which interrogates the

relationship between humans and their environment.

To be excluded is to exist outside a boundary, a

defined space where inclusion occurs. Several

thinkers shed light on this idea.

Sloterdijk (2000) describes humans as beings who

create "spheres" to adapt to the world, making the

boundary between inclusion and exclusion visible.

Honneth (2000), through the concept of the struggle

for recognition, highlights the role of social

relationships in identity formation. Gehlen (2021

[1940]) and Leroi-Gourhan (2012 [1943]) explore the

idea that humans as technical beings organise the

world to control its openness. These works help

define exclusion as an inability to participate in a

world structured by technological spheres.

3.2 A Sociological Perspective:

Mechanisms and Determinants of

Exclusion

Sociology offers tools to analyse the mechanisms

underlying digital exclusion. Castel (1994) and

Paugam et al. (1996) describe exclusion as a dynamic

On the Imperative of Interdisciplinarity in Deﬁning Digital Exclusion?

691

process, shaped by failures in systems of protection

and recognition. These failures can be associated with

factors such as:

 Income, employment, or cultural capital.

 Relationships with institutions and assistance

structures (Paugam, 2013 [1991]; Simmel,

2002 [1907]).

 Socio-economic criteria, such as gender or

housing.

Digital exclusion shares these determinants while

introducing specific dimensions related to skills and

access to technologies.

There is a circular relationship between social and

digital exclusion. Socially vulnerable groups are also

those most affected by the digital divide (Warren,

2007). This interdependence creates a vicious cycle

in which mutual exclusions reinforce one another.

4 RESEARCH AGENDA:

TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE

UNDERSTANDING OF

DIGITAL EXCLUSION

The study of digital exclusion calls for a

comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that

goes beyond the traditional focus on access and skills.

By integrating philosophical and sociological

perspectives, we can redefine digital exclusion as a

dynamic and multifaceted process that reflects

broader social, cultural, and technological

interactions. This conclusion outlines a research

agenda to deepen our understanding of digital

exclusion and guide future inquiry.

Theoretical foundations must be established to

clarify the concept of digital exclusion, moving

beyond simplistic definitions centred on lack of

access. A refined definition should incorporate

dimensions of autonomy, agency, and social

recognition, emphasizing the structural and power

dynamics that shape exclusion. Philosophical

approaches, such as the concept of boundaries in

anthropological philosophy, can shed light on the

relational and contextual nature of exclusion.

Simultaneously, sociological frameworks highlight

the mechanisms and determinants of exclusion,

including economic inequalities, cultural capital, and

institutional relationships. Exploring these aspects

through an intersectional lens will reveal how

exclusion is compounded by factors such as gender,

ethnicity, disability, and geography.

Empirical studies are essential to ground this

theoretical understanding in diverse real-world

contexts. Research should examine the experiences of

marginalised communities, such as migrants,

refugees, and displaced populations, to uncover the

specific challenges they face in accessing and using

digital technologies. Similarly, comparative studies

of rural and urban disparities can illuminate how

geographical and infrastructural differences influence

digital exclusion. Vulnerable groups, including the

elderly and individuals with disabilities, also warrant

focused attention to address their unique needs and

barriers. These inquiries should not only identify

exclusionary mechanisms but also explore the role of

institutions and policies in perpetuating or mitigating

exclusion.

Methodologically, a mixed approach is needed to

capture the complexity of digital exclusion.

Ethnographic studies can provide rich, qualitative

insights into the lived experiences of excluded

populations, exploring their interactions with

technology and their surrounding social contexts.

Participatory research methods can empower these

groups to co-design solutions and contribute directly

to policy and practice. Comparative analyses across

regions and nations can further identify common

patterns and localised solutions, providing a global

perspective on digital exclusion.

At the intersection of theory and practice, this

agenda emphasizes the importance of evaluating

digital policies and initiatives to ensure they address

the root causes of exclusion. Inclusive technologies

designed with user-centred and participatory

approaches can play a vital role in reducing barriers

and fostering equity. Furthermore, bridging the gap

between digital and social inclusion requires an

understanding of their reciprocal relationship.

Socially vulnerable groups often experience

heightened digital exclusion, creating a vicious cycle

that needs targeted intervention. Policies and

initiatives must address this interplay to achieve

sustainable inclusion.

Finally, future research must address critical

questions about the transitions between inclusion and

exclusion, the impact of emerging technologies, and

the ethical considerations surrounding digital justice.

How can policies facilitate transitions to inclusion

while preventing regression into exclusion? What

role do technologies such as artificial intelligence and

blockchain play in exacerbating or mitigating digital

exclusion? How can principles of fairness, equity, and

justice guide interventions in this domain?

By embracing this comprehensive agenda,

researchers can contribute to a deeper understanding

of digital exclusion and its implications. This

knowledge will inform the design of equitable digital

ecosystems that empower individuals and

communities, ensuring that digital inclusion becomes

a reality for all.

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

692

REFERENCES

Castel, R. (1994). La dynamique des processus de

marginalisation : de la vulnérabilité à la désaffiliation.

Cahiers de recherche sociologique, (22), 11-27.

DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the digital

divide to digital inequality: Studying Internet use as

penetration increases: Working Paper 15. Center for

Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson

School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Faik, I., Sengupta, A., & Deng, Y. (2024). Inclusion By

Design: Requirements Elicitation with Digitally

Marginalized Communities. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 218.

Gehlen, A. (2021) L'Homme. Sa nature et sa position dans

le monde. Gallimard. Paris.

Honneth, A. (2000). La lutte pour la reconnaissance.

Gallimard. Paris.

Jaeger, P., Bertot, J., Thompson, K., Katz, S., &DeCoster,

E. (2012). The intersection of public policy and public

access: Digital divides, digital literacy, digital

inclusion, and public libraries. Public Library

Quarterly, 31(1), 1–20.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (2012). Évolution et techniques-Tome 1-

L'Homme et la Matière. Albin Michel.

Naidoo, S., & Raju, J. (2012). Impact of the digital divide

on information literacy training in a higher education

context. South African Journal of Libraries and

Information Science, 78(1), 34-44.

Pandey, P., & Zheng, Y. (2023). Technologies of Power in

Digital Inclusion. Journal of the Association for

Information Systems, 24(5), 1334–1357.

Paugam, S., Martin, C., & Schweyer, F. X. (1996).

L'exclusion, l'état des savoirs (p. 588p). La Découverte.

Paris.

Paugam, S. (2013). La Disqualification sociale : essai sur

la nouvelle pauvreté. Presses Universitaires de France.

Paris.

Reisdorf, B., & Rhinesmith, C. (2020). Digital inclusion as

a core component of social inclusion. Social Inclusion,

8(2), 132–137. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i2.3184

Simmel, G., (2002). Les Pauvres. Presses Universitaires de

France. Paris.

Sloterdijk, P. (2000). La Domestication de l'Être : Pour un

éclaircissement de la clairière. Mille et une nuit. Paris.

Van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Wiley.

Vassilakopoulou, P., Hustad, E. (2023). Bridging Digital

Divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for

Information Systems Research. Information Systems

Frontiers, 25, 955–969.

Warren, M. (2007). The digital vicious cycle: Links

between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in

rural areas. Telecommunications Policy, 31(6-7), 374-

388.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Dissecting the" digital divide": A

case study in Egypt. The information society, 19(4),

297-304.

Wilson-Menzfeld, G., Erfani, G., Young-Murphy, L.,

Charlton, W., De Luca, H., Brittain, K., & Steven, A.

(2024). Identifying and understanding digital

exclusion: a mixed-methods study. Behaviour &

Information Technology, 1–18.

Zheng, Y., & Walsham, G. (2021). Inequality of what? An

intersectional approach to digital inequality under

Covid-19. Information And Organization, 31(1),

Article 100341.

On the Imperative of Interdisciplinarity in Deﬁning Digital Exclusion?

693